Russell, my use of your real first name is intended to remind you that I know exactly who you are, and my warning establishes legally and unequivocally that I do not want to meet with you. I have no intention of identifying you publicly at OLO, since I respect your privacy - rather, I am demanding that you respect mine.

That you seem unaware of why your approach to me was totally inappropriate is confirmation to me that you are socially handicapped and mentally unbalanced. I mentioned in an unrelated thread that I was holidaying with my kids, and lo and behold you travel thousands of kilometres to front up at that very place less than a week later, after a week of increasingly acrimonious online argument between us.

The last thing I am is "afraid" of you, but I am disturbed that you have lost touch with reality to the extent that you thought such behaviour is reasonable. Further, I certainly wouldn't want someone as misanthropic as you anywhere near my kids and grandkids.

Lastly, since you know that I post here under my real name, your laughable threats about defamation clearly apply far more to you than they do to me.

Think about that for a while - and get help.

Karshish, I specifically acknowledged that you did not directy advocate the murder of 80 million human beings per year. What I did point out was that, by your own arguments, and given current global death rates, that was the inescapable conclusion.

Even if "every year for the next 50 years over 80 million fewer human beings should be born", it still won't be enough to meet your "absolute priority": the 4 or 5 billion too many we already have aren't going to conveniently drop dead in time to Save The Planet, are they?

To draw the historical analogy again, neither Ernst Haeckel nor Alfred Ploetz actually advocated the mass extermination of "untermenschen"; it was left to others less principled but dreadfully more practical to draw that inevitable conclusion from their theories of "racial hygiene".

My concern is that we never see such murderous delusion, however well intentioned, ever again.

VK3AUU, ericc, etc., my points regarding defence were 1)how many of the "green left" would countenance a massive build-up in high-tech weaponry as politically acceptable, and 2)how many of you would be willing to shill out the extra tax $ to pay for it? (assuming any more can be squeezed out of the taxpayer after meeting the inevitably increased taxes and utility costs from Rudd's CPRS?

KAEP, your rampant misogyny continues to amuse me almost as much as it astounds me.

"....and my warning establishes legally and unequivocally that I do not want to meet with you."

Der... you don't say. Don't you think you've made that clear enough already....like, about half a dozen times?

Don't you think I regret extending a friendly offer for you to come and meet me, if you felt so inclined, by telling you where I was? You have entrenched your position as the lowest of the low on OLO by turning that friendly gesture into a total negative, and then harping on it at every opportunity? Boy oh boy, you are verging on spasticity!

Oh, and don't worry about the forum rules - that is, about putting up post after post that have nothing to do with the thread subject.

And don't worry about the defamation business. Constant slurs and slanders, which you fully know are unfounded and which can easily be shown to be so if it comes to the crunch, don't constitute defamation. No....not in the insular rule-less world of Morgan.

Alright, so you are terribly spooked by the possibility of us meeting in the real world. But you've got no qualms at all about being as nasty as you can in the cyberworld! You apparently feel totally secure in doing that....until there is the possibility of some of the consequences your cybercrap transcending into your real world. Then you go into a real tizz! In fact, you appear to have freaked right out!!

Alright, I'm pleased that you thought twice about about spilling my real name on this forum. You can see that it would be most unwise, because I do have a very good point regarding the connection of my real name with your much-repeated defamatory babble, don't I.

Meanwhile, continue calling me Russell to your heart's content, if it pleases you.
_____________

The Australian Conservation Foundation and the Greens are finally making some real noises about Australia's massive rate of population growth. Their comments are very basic, of the sort that they should have been expressing years ago. But at least it is finally happening.

continued

If these comments can strike a chord with the very high level of latent concern in the community about record high immigration, etc, then there could easily be a massive outcry against the Ruddite maximised expansionist policies.

Now, if Turnbull and his crew could just see the potential here and get in on the whole population stabilisation / sustainability paradigm up front, and then let it develop following their initiative, they could quickly gain a whole lot of support...and be in a good position to win the next election.

If they don't do this, they haven't got the slightest chance of winning the next election, or the one after it.

What this country DESPERATELY needs is for the libs to see that their future lies fairly and squarely with the embrace of sustainability in Australia, of which population stabilisation is the single most important factor.

As for the rest of the world, population stabilisation/reduction and sustainability are about a million times harder to achieve.

Ludwig, are you seriously suggesting the Australian Liberal party should/would ever give up the neo liberal, economically 'rational' idea of a growth economy, in favour of a sustainable one?
Then again, why not. If the so called Labor party can invent economic rationalism, and pursue a blatantly neo liberal agenda, why shouldn't the pole cats change their spots.
Can't see it happening, but.

Ludwig, you mean the Libs should dog-whistle the "f@ck off, we're full" bogan vote?